A SCUFFLE has broken out after two more trees in Druitt Gardens are being felled this morning despite tree protection orders on them.

Police were called after reports of an altercation between a local resident and a contractor on the site.

One bystander said they saw one person with their hand round the throat of another.

Yesterday an enquiry was been demanded into why two other trees were felled by Christchurch council just weeks after a successful campaign to protect them.

Today, Friday, the council confirmed two more trees were being felled.

Cllr Colin Jamieson, head of the planning committee at Christchurch said on Friday morning: "My committee put TPOs on the trees and it is clear that something has gone on in the meantime.

"I will be looking into what's happened."

He said he was "concerned" about the developments.

Cllr Ray Nottage, leader of Christchurch council said: “I am saddened by the fact we have lost the trees but I do not think officers have got any alternative in view of public safety.

“I think the damage has to be discussed between the officers and the developer.

“My feeling about taking action is that I would not advocate the use of public money to take action unless there is a certainty of us winning."

Responding to the point public money had been used to fell the trees, he replied: “In the interests of public safety.”

Cllr Lesley Dedman said: “I am deeply disappointed. This is sacrilege; we have made a huge effort to save these trees and now they are gone.”

Cllr David Jones said: “There are clearly question to be answered and as a former chairman of planning I would like to see what the explanation is.”

Neil Farmer, Strategic Director at Christchurch Borough Council, said: “We were contacted by the developer at the Cornfactor site last night as he was concerned about the state of two more trees whose roots had been uncovered close to the boundary of the development.

"Our tree officer went down to inspect the site at first light this morning and saw that the trees were indeed in a dangerous state.

"From a health and safety standpoint, the tree officer recommended felling the trees and I accepted this was necessary.

“The work that the developer was doing was inside the boundary of the site and they have a planning consent which they are entitled to implement within that site.

"Whilst it is unfortunate that these trees have had to come down, as part of the landscaping of that part of Druitt Gardens, an additional 30 trees will be planted."

He added: “The council does not anticipate the removal of any further trees, however our tree officer and building control officer will be monitoring the work to ensure that the developer complies fully with their planning permission.”

“The council’s audit and scrutiny process allows for councillors’ concerns to be heard and if any councillor requests a review then one will be undertaken.”

Local resident Sandra Ementon, retired, said: "I have known it since I was a child and now it's all gone. I'm disgusted"

Residents and councillors have expressed their outrage after the two original trees in Druitt Gardens, protected by tree preservation orders, were cut down this week.

A community campaign, backed by more than 450 people in Christchurch, won over councillors earlier this year when members voted to save the Druitt Gardens trees after developers of the adjacent Cornfactor site had proposed felling seven trees.

Their application was refused and tree preservation orders placed on the trees.

But on Wednesday, after an excavation ditch was dug along the boundary on the site, severing three roots, the trees were cut down by the council, who deemed them “unsafe”.

Cllr Peter Hall, ward member for the town centre said he was “outraged and disappointed.”

He added: “I will be pursuing an investigation into this and call for replacement trees to be planted immediately.”

Elliot Marx, who was involved in the original battle said: “We are absolutely furious about this.

“I and many others want to know how this has happened, just a few weeks after these trees were protected. It’s scandalous.”

In their original statement, the council declined to mention the ditch which had been dug, saying the trees were a “danger to the public” and blamed the “extreme weather conditions” for the felling.

But after enquiries from the Daily Echo they re-issued a second response.

David McIntosh, chief executive, Christchurch and East Dorset Councils said: “The work carried out at the Cornfactor site was by the developer’s archaeological team within the site boundaries.

“The Council were contacted by the developer to assess the effect on trees in Druitt Gardens.

“Two trees were assessed as unsafe and a danger to the public.”

He added: “No action will be taken against the developer as they are permitted to implement their planning permission on the Cornfactor site which involves, amongst other activities, carrying out archaeological works.”

Developer’s response

Robert Taylor, managing director of Renaissance Retirement, who is building a retirement complex at the Cornfactor site, said the ditch was part of an archaeological dig taking place on the Cornfactor site.

“While they were doing that three roots were severed inside our site”, he said.

“I visited the site on Wednesday morning and contacted the tree officer from Christchurch as I was concerned they were going to fall over and hurt someone.”

If this had been one of the utility companies the council would have come down on them like a ton of bricks! I can remember a situation where tree roots were accidentally damaged in Sandford and it caused no end of trouble for the utility concerned and cost thousands of pounds.
This was the developer's own archaeological team that did this, and they should be pursued and fined, and replant similar trees.
This absolutely stinks!

If this had been one of the utility companies the council would have come down on them like a ton of bricks! I can remember a situation where tree roots were accidentally damaged in Sandford and it caused no end of trouble for the utility concerned and cost thousands of pounds.
This was the developer's own archaeological team that did this, and they should be pursued and fined, and replant similar trees.
This absolutely stinks!zabadoo

How has an archeological dig severed three roots?? Surely they should be doing this by hand not a huge JCB?? And why did they continue after severing the first root?

A mature tree provides more than a young sapling, I hope the council now plant 10 trees to replace the ones lost (and charge the people responsible)

How has an archeological dig severed three roots?? Surely they should be doing this by hand not a huge JCB?? And why did they continue after severing the first root?
A mature tree provides more than a young sapling, I hope the council now plant 10 trees to replace the ones lost (and charge the people responsible)madM74

Corrupt as you like! So is the new rule that if you for example wanted to cut down a tree to build an extension and you are refused permission, you simply dig for buried treasure and the cut it down when you get to the point it wobble in the wind?

Corrupt as you like! So is the new rule that if you for example wanted to cut down a tree to build an extension and you are refused permission, you simply dig for buried treasure and the cut it down when you get to the point it wobble in the wind?mikeymagic

I am one of the campaigners: fighting for this treasured habitat, Druitt Gardens since 1991. It's a natural woodland, not a park, and before Christchurch Council got hold of it in 2006, had 57 species of birds. Now, an archaeological trench is NOT dug by the developer: but at the direction of an archaeologist (surprise, surprise), who would never work under a tree canopy and if he disturbed roots, would stop using a digger machine. Lies, lies, lies, , and yes - you bet backhanders are relevant, and you bet a fine for causing the demise of TPO trees is in order. It's not just the councillors, folks - IT'S THE ENTIRE COUNCIL behind this treachery. Treachery to us, and to wildlife and plant life.

I am one of the campaigners: fighting for this treasured habitat, Druitt Gardens since 1991. It's a natural woodland, not a park, and before Christchurch Council got hold of it in 2006, had 57 species of birds. Now, an archaeological trench is NOT dug by the developer: but at the direction of an archaeologist (surprise, surprise), who would never work under a tree canopy and if he disturbed roots, would stop using a digger machine. Lies, lies, lies, , and yes - you bet backhanders are relevant, and you bet a fine for causing the demise of TPO trees is in order. It's not just the councillors, folks - IT'S THE ENTIRE COUNCIL behind this treachery. Treachery to us, and to wildlife and plant life.Pastsellbydate

The trees they have felled must be replaced immediately with similar sized ones from another site. The expense and inconvenience of doing this will be a lesson to the contractors that they MUST obey the law!

The trees they have felled must be replaced immediately with similar sized ones from another site. The expense and inconvenience of doing this will be a lesson to the contractors that they MUST obey the law!Turtlebay

Come on be fair to the Council, it's probably just like those many glorious mature oaks that lined Castle Lane near Mallard Road in Bournemouth, until Castlepoint was about to be progressed and Bournemouth Council wanted to change the road layout, I am sure these two trees were dangerously diseased and could well have toppled over at any time in the next couple of hundred years.

Come on be fair to the Council, it's probably just like those many glorious mature oaks that lined Castle Lane near Mallard Road in Bournemouth, until Castlepoint was about to be progressed and Bournemouth Council wanted to change the road layout, I am sure these two trees were dangerously diseased and could well have toppled over at any time in the next couple of hundred years.muscliffman

Pastsellbydate wrote:
I am one of the campaigners: fighting for this treasured habitat, Druitt Gardens since 1991. It's a natural woodland, not a park, and before Christchurch Council got hold of it in 2006, had 57 species of birds. Now, an archaeological trench is NOT dug by the developer: but at the direction of an archaeologist (surprise, surprise), who would never work under a tree canopy and if he disturbed roots, would stop using a digger machine. Lies, lies, lies, , and yes - you bet backhanders are relevant, and you bet a fine for causing the demise of TPO trees is in order. It's not just the councillors, folks - IT'S THE ENTIRE COUNCIL behind this treachery. Treachery to us, and to wildlife and plant life.

Wouldn't it be good if we had a decent unbiased press to investigate the daily reports of weak corrupt local government,instead of the useless bunch that have evolved through political pressure.

[quote][p][bold]Pastsellbydate[/bold] wrote:
I am one of the campaigners: fighting for this treasured habitat, Druitt Gardens since 1991. It's a natural woodland, not a park, and before Christchurch Council got hold of it in 2006, had 57 species of birds. Now, an archaeological trench is NOT dug by the developer: but at the direction of an archaeologist (surprise, surprise), who would never work under a tree canopy and if he disturbed roots, would stop using a digger machine. Lies, lies, lies, , and yes - you bet backhanders are relevant, and you bet a fine for causing the demise of TPO trees is in order. It's not just the councillors, folks - IT'S THE ENTIRE COUNCIL behind this treachery. Treachery to us, and to wildlife and plant life.[/p][/quote]Wouldn't it be good if we had a decent unbiased press to investigate the daily reports of weak corrupt local government,instead of the useless bunch that have evolved through political pressure.kalebmoledirt

At what point will the council take the residents seriously. Will it take the 2015 local elections and the publication of all the underhand ways that this council have dealt with local issues to bring them to their senses - Druitt Hall being one of the main ones! To have a benefactor come forward to give the residents a wonderful new Community Centre and the councillors turn him down was beyond belief. But to have a council prepared to build beach huts on the sea side of the promenade at Mudeford at a cost of thousands to council tax payers is about as stupid as you can get.. So why should we be suprised that the council agrees to the cutting down of what had been noted as previous healthy trees in Druitt Gardens!

At what point will the council take the residents seriously. Will it take the 2015 local elections and the publication of all the underhand ways that this council have dealt with local issues to bring them to their senses - Druitt Hall being one of the main ones! To have a benefactor come forward to give the residents a wonderful new Community Centre and the councillors turn him down was beyond belief. But to have a council prepared to build beach huts on the sea side of the promenade at Mudeford at a cost of thousands to council tax payers is about as stupid as you can get.. So why should we be suprised that the council agrees to the cutting down of what had been noted as previous healthy trees in Druitt Gardens!mytown1

This for me is déjà vu.
.
I was a green as grass 19 year old in the late 60s on the committee to set up Stanpit as the first Council owned nature reserve (I ran the local WWF branch).
.
At a meeting I referred to an allegation that the chair of the meeting had chopped down 4 healthy oak trees which had been declared unsafe by the Hampshire County arborlogist (Christchurch was Hants then) to allow access to a development of his in Burton.
.
I had the stumps examined by the Dorset County arborlogist who confirmed there was absolutely nothing wrong with them but could not give evidence to that effect because it was a different County.
.
I was, with hindsight quite correctly ruled out of order, but the accusation did make the Christchurch Times and the development was built.
.
If things don’t change they’ll stay the bl##dy same.
.
As an at times outspoken supporter of Councillors for the work they do I will hold judgement until I know the full facts, but at the moment this stinks.

This for me is déjà vu.
.
I was a green as grass 19 year old in the late 60s on the committee to set up Stanpit as the first Council owned nature reserve (I ran the local WWF branch).
.
At a meeting I referred to an allegation that the chair of the meeting had chopped down 4 healthy oak trees which had been declared unsafe by the Hampshire County arborlogist (Christchurch was Hants then) to allow access to a development of his in Burton.
.
I had the stumps examined by the Dorset County arborlogist who confirmed there was absolutely nothing wrong with them but could not give evidence to that effect because it was a different County.
.
I was, with hindsight quite correctly ruled out of order, but the accusation did make the Christchurch Times and the development was built.
.
If things don’t change they’ll stay the bl##dy same.
.
As an at times outspoken supporter of Councillors for the work they do I will hold judgement until I know the full facts, but at the moment this stinks.twynham

Don't understand!
.
If the tree preservation was in place both the developer and the council have an obligation to abide by it.
.
It's the developers responsibility to survey properly in order not to damage them.
.
They are are liable and should be heavily punished.

Don't understand!
.
If the tree preservation was in place both the developer and the council have an obligation to abide by it.
.
It's the developers responsibility to survey properly in order not to damage them.
.
They are are liable and should be heavily punished.HRH of Boscombe

HRH of Boscombe wrote:
Don't understand!
.
If the tree preservation was in place both the developer and the council have an obligation to abide by it.
.
It's the developers responsibility to survey properly in order not to damage them.
.
They are are liable and should be heavily punished.

What is there not to understand? TPOs mean nothing when you are a council with a developer willing to wine and dine you from the profit to be made. A fine is but a drop in the ocean.

By the time they have finished blaming everyone but themselves, the matter will have blown over and the local electorate will vote the council back in for another 3 years.

[quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote:
Don't understand!
.
If the tree preservation was in place both the developer and the council have an obligation to abide by it.
.
It's the developers responsibility to survey properly in order not to damage them.
.
They are are liable and should be heavily punished.[/p][/quote]What is there not to understand? TPOs mean nothing when you are a council with a developer willing to wine and dine you from the profit to be made. A fine is but a drop in the ocean.
By the time they have finished blaming everyone but themselves, the matter will have blown over and the local electorate will vote the council back in for another 3 years.Phixer

mytown1 wrote:
At what point will the council take the residents seriously. Will it take the 2015 local elections and the publication of all the underhand ways that this council have dealt with local issues to bring them to their senses - Druitt Hall being one of the main ones! To have a benefactor come forward to give the residents a wonderful new Community Centre and the councillors turn him down was beyond belief. But to have a council prepared to build beach huts on the sea side of the promenade at Mudeford at a cost of thousands to council tax payers is about as stupid as you can get.. So why should we be suprised that the council agrees to the cutting down of what had been noted as previous healthy trees in Druitt Gardens!

I have a feeling UKIP will do very well here in 2015

[quote][p][bold]mytown1[/bold] wrote:
At what point will the council take the residents seriously. Will it take the 2015 local elections and the publication of all the underhand ways that this council have dealt with local issues to bring them to their senses - Druitt Hall being one of the main ones! To have a benefactor come forward to give the residents a wonderful new Community Centre and the councillors turn him down was beyond belief. But to have a council prepared to build beach huts on the sea side of the promenade at Mudeford at a cost of thousands to council tax payers is about as stupid as you can get.. So why should we be suprised that the council agrees to the cutting down of what had been noted as previous healthy trees in Druitt Gardens![/p][/quote]I have a feeling UKIP will do very well here in 2015billy bumble

mytown1 wrote:
At what point will the council take the residents seriously. Will it take the 2015 local elections and the publication of all the underhand ways that this council have dealt with local issues to bring them to their senses - Druitt Hall being one of the main ones! To have a benefactor come forward to give the residents a wonderful new Community Centre and the councillors turn him down was beyond belief. But to have a council prepared to build beach huts on the sea side of the promenade at Mudeford at a cost of thousands to council tax payers is about as stupid as you can get.. So why should we be suprised that the council agrees to the cutting down of what had been noted as previous healthy trees in Druitt Gardens!

I have a feeling UKIP will do very well here in 2015

If it means this lot gets the boot then I would vote for them

[quote][p][bold]billy bumble[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]mytown1[/bold] wrote:
At what point will the council take the residents seriously. Will it take the 2015 local elections and the publication of all the underhand ways that this council have dealt with local issues to bring them to their senses - Druitt Hall being one of the main ones! To have a benefactor come forward to give the residents a wonderful new Community Centre and the councillors turn him down was beyond belief. But to have a council prepared to build beach huts on the sea side of the promenade at Mudeford at a cost of thousands to council tax payers is about as stupid as you can get.. So why should we be suprised that the council agrees to the cutting down of what had been noted as previous healthy trees in Druitt Gardens![/p][/quote]I have a feeling UKIP will do very well here in 2015[/p][/quote]If it means this lot gets the boot then I would vote for themskydriver

FURTHER OUTRAGE: TWO MORE TREES BEING FELLED. Further 'archaeological investigations' by the developer (!!!!!) have resulted in more tree roots being 'destabilised' (= severed) and Christchurch Council had a felling contractor available instantly to fell the trees. In the absence of legal action being taken against the developer for killing protected trees, are we not being run by a highly questionable outfit masquerading as a local authority?

FURTHER OUTRAGE: TWO MORE TREES BEING FELLED. Further 'archaeological investigations' by the developer (!!!!!) have resulted in more tree roots being 'destabilised' (= severed) and Christchurch Council had a felling contractor available instantly to fell the trees. In the absence of legal action being taken against the developer for killing protected trees, are we not being run by a highly questionable outfit masquerading as a local authority?Pastsellbydate

54% of the Community Services committee represent Highcliffe wards - only 1 Councillor on that committee represents the Town Centre

6 years is the length of the lease proposed by Christchurch Council for a new Community Hall in the Town Centre, a 100% guarantee of thwarting residents plans for a replacement hall

£0 (zero) is the amount of Community Gain extracted from the Developer by Christchurch Council, an amount so low that it beggars belief

40% of the merged Councils represent Christchurch - 60% represent East Dorset, a rural community with zero (0) synergies with Christchurch.

0 (zero), the number of Christchurch residents who were allowed to vote for the merger with East Dorset

100% disgraceful

469 days to go before the next Borough elections

92% of Christchurch Councillors are Conservative
54% of the Community Services committee represent Highcliffe wards - only 1 Councillor on that committee represents the Town Centre
6 years is the length of the lease proposed by Christchurch Council for a new Community Hall in the Town Centre, a 100% guarantee of thwarting residents plans for a replacement hall
£0 (zero) is the amount of Community Gain extracted from the Developer by Christchurch Council, an amount so low that it beggars belief
40% of the merged Councils represent Christchurch - 60% represent East Dorset, a rural community with zero (0) synergies with Christchurch.
0 (zero), the number of Christchurch residents who were allowed to vote for the merger with East Dorset
100% disgraceful
469 days to go before the next Borough electionsukipifyouwant2

To be honest with you the way I read this is that something very backhanded has gone on here. No wonder the residents are furious. The council have been forced into saying NO against their will and it looks as if the developer knew exactly what to do to get his own way. Sounds corrupt to me.

To be honest with you the way I read this is that something very backhanded has gone on here. No wonder the residents are furious. The council have been forced into saying NO against their will and it looks as if the developer knew exactly what to do to get his own way. Sounds corrupt to me.afcb-mark

Just been down there again and viewed the 'altercation'. The poor man was beside himself with rage and no wonder. The entire site plus acres all around are completely shrouded in very high, close panelling and hazard tapes and all spyholes plugged. The roar of chainsaws was sickening. Weep for the ecosystem so wilfully destroyed. Developers don't have 'archaeological teams' and a condition on the planning was a writtenh submission of archaeological works to be approved before anything was done anyway. Stinks? It putrefies.
Rol on UKIP. You're gonna win from this but even you cannot replace a habitat evolved over many decades, centuries even.

Just been down there again and viewed the 'altercation'. The poor man was beside himself with rage and no wonder. The entire site plus acres all around are completely shrouded in very high, close panelling and hazard tapes and all spyholes plugged. The roar of chainsaws was sickening. Weep for the ecosystem so wilfully destroyed. Developers don't have 'archaeological teams' and a condition on the planning was a writtenh submission of archaeological works to be approved before anything was done anyway. Stinks? It putrefies.
Rol on UKIP. You're gonna win from this but even you cannot replace a habitat evolved over many decades, centuries even.Crank

Archaeological digs - what rot! Who was guiding them?
Two "accidents" in three days - so lightning can strike twice!
The council have now got a red and white tape some distance from the 8 foot hoardings in the gardens - miles away from the trees that were felled and obviously to warn anyone away from the trees that are left. The sign says the "gardens are closed to inclement weather". Perhaps the council and developers are expecting a lot more lighting strikes due to bad weather!!! Excavators attract a lot of electricity!

Archaeological digs - what rot! Who was guiding them?
Two "accidents" in three days - so lightning can strike twice!
The council have now got a red and white tape some distance from the 8 foot hoardings in the gardens - miles away from the trees that were felled and obviously to warn anyone away from the trees that are left. The sign says the "gardens are closed to inclement weather". Perhaps the council and developers are expecting a lot more lighting strikes due to bad weather!!! Excavators attract a lot of electricity!Jo Ikarus

Whilst I agree that the councillors need to be replaced, it seems to me we were not informed of the true facts of TPO's. Those trees were TPO'd to shut us up! In the leaflet produced by said council about the facts of TPO's, it states that any developers are well within their rights to chop back or destroy ANY trees that are in the way of their development, once full planning permission has been granted! I agree with Crank, they will win this, so instead of fighting about it which gets us nowhere, back off and let them get it done asap, and put a plan together to replace the wildlife once the gardens are replanted. There is not much we can do for the wee things now, but perhaps we can get a wildlife rescue centre to rehome some of their misplaced creatures...

Whilst I agree that the councillors need to be replaced, it seems to me we were not informed of the true facts of TPO's. Those trees were TPO'd to shut us up! In the leaflet produced by said council about the facts of TPO's, it states that any developers are well within their rights to chop back or destroy ANY trees that are in the way of their development, once full planning permission has been granted! I agree with Crank, they will win this, so instead of fighting about it which gets us nowhere, back off and let them get it done asap, and put a plan together to replace the wildlife once the gardens are replanted. There is not much we can do for the wee things now, but perhaps we can get a wildlife rescue centre to rehome some of their misplaced creatures...Sensible Sue

Ray Nottage's blog this morning states.
.
"I was saddened to hear that in view of the threat to public safety action was taken to fell trees immediately adjacent to a building site. Developers do have a responsibility in respect of trees that are protected but should as a result of development trees become a public safety issue Council officers have no option but to take action to protect the public. These weather conditions are also not helpful with tree casualties all over the County. The only encouragement I can take is that the developer has contracted to planting 50 semi mature trees in the public space and I intend to see that happens over the development period."
.
Sorry Mr Nottage, that is cr#p.
.
For an "archaeological dig" to sever one tree root is careless, to cut through four is blatant vandalism and contrary to the TPOs placed on the trees.
.
Surely now "Council officers have no option" but to fine the developer as any member of the public would have been?
.
Ensuring that they stick to their original contract is hardly going to protect the remaining trees.

Ray Nottage's blog this morning states.
.
"I was saddened to hear that in view of the threat to public safety action was taken to fell trees immediately adjacent to a building site. Developers do have a responsibility in respect of trees that are protected but should as a result of development trees become a public safety issue Council officers have no option but to take action to protect the public. These weather conditions are also not helpful with tree casualties all over the County. The only encouragement I can take is that the developer has contracted to planting 50 semi mature trees in the public space and I intend to see that happens over the development period."
.
Sorry Mr Nottage, that is cr#p.
.
For an "archaeological dig" to sever one tree root is careless, to cut through four is blatant vandalism and contrary to the TPOs placed on the trees.
.
Surely now "Council officers have no option" but to fine the developer as any member of the public would have been?
.
Ensuring that they stick to their original contract is hardly going to protect the remaining trees.twynham

Sensible Sue wrote:
Whilst I agree that the councillors need to be replaced, it seems to me we were not informed of the true facts of TPO's. Those trees were TPO'd to shut us up! In the leaflet produced by said council about the facts of TPO's, it states that any developers are well within their rights to chop back or destroy ANY trees that are in the way of their development, once full planning permission has been granted! I agree with Crank, they will win this, so instead of fighting about it which gets us nowhere, back off and let them get it done asap, and put a plan together to replace the wildlife once the gardens are replanted. There is not much we can do for the wee things now, but perhaps we can get a wildlife rescue centre to rehome some of their misplaced creatures...

The trees are not even on the developer's land, and if what you say is true why did the felling application go to a council planning committee if a TPO was irrelevant?
Wishful thinking about the wildlife idea: in 2005 an Adopted Management Plan was passed after public consultation, objective being to enhance the natural woodland habitat. Instead, with no further consultation, CBC ripped up 80 trees, and the understorey and now we have this - not just 4 more trees gone but all the brambles and 'scrub' on which an ecosystem depends. Without the habitat, you can't bring the creatures back, and this is combined with a park-management-styl
e close strimming of grass which they laid to replace the wild plants. Can we rescue dragonflies, bats, butterflies, bees,, birds etc?

[quote][p][bold]Sensible Sue[/bold] wrote:
Whilst I agree that the councillors need to be replaced, it seems to me we were not informed of the true facts of TPO's. Those trees were TPO'd to shut us up! In the leaflet produced by said council about the facts of TPO's, it states that any developers are well within their rights to chop back or destroy ANY trees that are in the way of their development, once full planning permission has been granted! I agree with Crank, they will win this, so instead of fighting about it which gets us nowhere, back off and let them get it done asap, and put a plan together to replace the wildlife once the gardens are replanted. There is not much we can do for the wee things now, but perhaps we can get a wildlife rescue centre to rehome some of their misplaced creatures...[/p][/quote]The trees are not even on the developer's land, and if what you say is true why did the felling application go to a council planning committee if a TPO was irrelevant?
Wishful thinking about the wildlife idea: in 2005 an Adopted Management Plan was passed after public consultation, objective being to enhance the natural woodland habitat. Instead, with no further consultation, CBC ripped up 80 trees, and the understorey and now we have this - not just 4 more trees gone but all the brambles and 'scrub' on which an ecosystem depends. Without the habitat, you can't bring the creatures back, and this is combined with a park-management-styl
e close strimming of grass which they laid to replace the wild plants. Can we rescue dragonflies, bats, butterflies, bees,, birds etc?Crank

From the Planning Portal:
'The order makes it an offence to cut down, uproot, prune, lop or damage the tree in question without first obtaining the Council’s consent. '
They damaged them without prior consent.
'Anyone who wishes to fell or carry out work to a tree protected by a TPO must apply to the Council to obtain permission.'
They did not.
'If any protected tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed in contravention of a TPO it is the duty of the landowner to plant another tree of an appropriate size and species, at the same place, as soon as he/she reasonably can'
So, the council has to replace the 4 trees exactly where they were - right?.Up against the boundary.

From the Planning Portal:
'The order makes it an offence to cut down, uproot, prune, lop or damage the tree in question without first obtaining the Council’s consent. '
They damaged them without prior consent.
'Anyone who wishes to fell or carry out work to a tree protected by a TPO must apply to the Council to obtain permission.'
They did not.
'If any protected tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed in contravention of a TPO it is the duty of the landowner to plant another tree of an appropriate size and species, at the same place, as soon as he/she reasonably can'
So, the council has to replace the 4 trees exactly where they were - right?.Up against the boundary.Crank

So anyone in Christchurch now has a step by step process for getting around a TPO. You carry out an legitimate action that apparently, accidentally damages the roots - say, installing a water feature or underground electric cable. You then express concern to the council about elf'n'safety. The council say you can cut down the tree. If they don't you document that the council has, in effect, taken on responsibility for future damage by declaring the tree is safe. Something that public bodies are massively unlikely to do because they are engineered to be totally risk adverse. Far simpler for them to just allow the tree to be felled. Ta dah!

So anyone in Christchurch now has a step by step process for getting around a TPO. You carry out an legitimate action that apparently, accidentally damages the roots - say, installing a water feature or underground electric cable. You then express concern to the council about elf'n'safety. The council say you can cut down the tree. If they don't you document that the council has, in effect, taken on responsibility for future damage by declaring the tree is safe. Something that public bodies are massively unlikely to do because they are engineered to be totally risk adverse. Far simpler for them to just allow the tree to be felled. Ta dah!PokesdownMark

This makes me laugh as mu parents have a huge pine tree in there front garden, which is in christchurch. Which is a danger to them and people walking under it. Have applied many times to get it cut down but is protectected by a TPO and the coucils argument is that it looks nice for people to look at. the irony is they just spent the last few weeks cutting loads of them down in front off the house.

This makes me laugh as mu parents have a huge pine tree in there front garden, which is in christchurch. Which is a danger to them and people walking under it. Have applied many times to get it cut down but is protectected by a TPO and the coucils argument is that it looks nice for people to look at. the irony is they just spent the last few weeks cutting loads of them down in front off the house.Itsnot me

if not for the vigilant resident who was sickened by the arrogance of the developers and blatant disregard for rules, we would not know about this. Hands round the throat, he must feel passionately about the trees.
Just look on google at the pictures of the air quality in Beijing and Dehli and you will understand why trees are protected. Over development kills areas.

if not for the vigilant resident who was sickened by the arrogance of the developers and blatant disregard for rules, we would not know about this. Hands round the throat, he must feel passionately about the trees.
Just look on google at the pictures of the air quality in Beijing and Dehli and you will understand why trees are protected. Over development kills areas.ASM

More from Ray Nottage's blog!
.
I think you will find that with planning permission given the developer can proceed with development despite adjacent trees. What he did destabilised the trees making them a public safety issue. Officers had no alternative but to react to this public safety issue. All very messy I know and not something I am happy about .
In respect of legal action my view is that public money should only be used if there is a certainty that we should win.

My response.
.
If the developer or "archaeological dig" has contravened a TPO by destabalising the trees why would legal action not be successful?
I think you will find many residents wouldn't mind the Council spending our money having a go at deterring developers such as this.
.
Anyone else like to join me on his blog¿¿¿
.
http://raynottage.bl
ogspot.co.uk/

More from Ray Nottage's blog!
.
I think you will find that with planning permission given the developer can proceed with development despite adjacent trees. What he did destabilised the trees making them a public safety issue. Officers had no alternative but to react to this public safety issue. All very messy I know and not something I am happy about .
In respect of legal action my view is that public money should only be used if there is a certainty that we should win.
My response.
.
If the developer or "archaeological dig" has contravened a TPO by destabalising the trees why would legal action not be successful?
I think you will find many residents wouldn't mind the Council spending our money having a go at deterring developers such as this.
.
Anyone else like to join me on his blog¿¿¿
.
http://raynottage.bl
ogspot.co.uk/twynham

To say that the developer and the council had contrived together to get round the Tree Preservation would be difficult to prove but it looks that this could well be possible.
The saying : Money is the rout of all evil : seems very posable in this instant and this could be the reason that the council has made it impossible for local people to save the Druitt Hall.
I have never seen the council work so hard to grab and sell the Druitt Gardens as they seem to have done on this issue.

To say that the developer and the council had contrived together to get round the Tree Preservation would be difficult to prove but it looks that this could well be possible.
The saying : Money is the rout of all evil : seems very posable in this instant and this could be the reason that the council has made it impossible for local people to save the Druitt Hall.
I have never seen the council work so hard to grab and sell the Druitt Gardens as they seem to have done on this issue.JohnGS

get over it ,,,,,they are trees.........not people......better trees get felled than people..............
plant a dozen trees somewhere else and if necessary make the contractors pay if it was their fault in the first place..........bet people in somerset think "is this all Christchurch residents have to moan about"

get over it ,,,,,they are trees.........not people......better trees get felled than people..............
plant a dozen trees somewhere else and if necessary make the contractors pay if it was their fault in the first place..........bet people in somerset think "is this all Christchurch residents have to moan about"alanrr

A developer should not be diggintg anywhere within the protected zone around a tree under a TPO. The protection zone should be clearly fenced off with secure fencing over 1.2m high. Hand tools only should be used in these areas.
If the developer has contravened these rules then they can be prosecuted. It may well be that the trees were so damaged that they had to be removed for safety. But the developer can still be prosecuted for contravening the TPO and still has the legal obligation to replace any protected trees that are under a TPO as soon as reasonably practicable.
The council would not be wasting public money on pursuing a prosecution as the developer have clearly breached the conditions of the TPO. The protection zone eliminates any risk that the roots of the tree would be damaged. It is an open and shut case.
The CEO of the council clearly has no idea about the legislation; planning consent is entirely immaterial to TPOs. They may have been doing works on their site but they still have to comply with the law.

A developer should not be diggintg anywhere within the protected zone around a tree under a TPO. The protection zone should be clearly fenced off with secure fencing over 1.2m high. Hand tools only should be used in these areas.
If the developer has contravened these rules then they can be prosecuted. It may well be that the trees were so damaged that they had to be removed for safety. But the developer can still be prosecuted for contravening the TPO and still has the legal obligation to replace any protected trees that are under a TPO as soon as reasonably practicable.
The council would not be wasting public money on pursuing a prosecution as the developer have clearly breached the conditions of the TPO. The protection zone eliminates any risk that the roots of the tree would be damaged. It is an open and shut case.
The CEO of the council clearly has no idea about the legislation; planning consent is entirely immaterial to TPOs. They may have been doing works on their site but they still have to comply with the law.@ThorpeRobin

Crank wrote:
Just heard from unimpeachable source the developer gave Christchurch Council £200,000.

Did you mis any letters of the last bit of Council???????

[quote][p][bold]Crank[/bold] wrote:
Just heard from unimpeachable source the developer gave Christchurch Council £200,000.[/p][/quote]Did you mis any letters of the last bit of Council???????richardcompton3

The people in this town never listen until it is too late. I explained to numerous "important" people that the changes to the library/Druitts/the wood in the "rear" would be a catalyst to this new way of woods looking like a few sticks with odd chairs in. And it is clear that Wood surgery has a contact because I have never seen so many trees destroyed around the Christchurch area as anywhere else? The people of Christchurch allowed the shops to decline, massive shopping centers away from the main hub employing few people in the area but loads from other areas (or even none if you look carefully at the rota). And now you are making a token display of anger? And where is the youth protesting? In my time trees/forest improved the local way of life? It looks an eye sore, clearly something is not correct and I guess just like the key, no matter what you say someone is making a packet out of this.

The people in this town never listen until it is too late. I explained to numerous "important" people that the changes to the library/Druitts/the wood in the "rear" would be a catalyst to this new way of woods looking like a few sticks with odd chairs in. And it is clear that Wood surgery has a contact because I have never seen so many trees destroyed around the Christchurch area as anywhere else? The people of Christchurch allowed the shops to decline, massive shopping centers away from the main hub employing few people in the area but loads from other areas (or even none if you look carefully at the rota). And now you are making a token display of anger? And where is the youth protesting? In my time trees/forest improved the local way of life? It looks an eye sore, clearly something is not correct and I guess just like the key, no matter what you say someone is making a packet out of this.pestremoverltd

Sensible Sue wrote:
At last Alanrr - someone else with some sense! I'm looking forward to seeing what it looks like next year! No more awful derelict building and dark scrubland...

Not as sensible as your name suggests Sue!!! Someone has deliberately broken the law and should be held accountable. I would be if I felled protected trees in my garden. Basically you are condoning the council and the developers sly deeds in order to get their own way.

[quote][p][bold]Sensible Sue[/bold] wrote:
At last Alanrr - someone else with some sense! I'm looking forward to seeing what it looks like next year! No more awful derelict building and dark scrubland...[/p][/quote]Not as sensible as your name suggests Sue!!! Someone has deliberately broken the law and should be held accountable. I would be if I felled protected trees in my garden. Basically you are condoning the council and the developers sly deeds in order to get their own way.afcb-mark

The developer still has a duty of care to safeguard trees even when they aren't located on their site. The planning permission should also have been subject to an approrpiate arboricultural appraisal and a method statement to ensure works did not damge the trees on the adjacent site - irrespective of whether or not they were protected at the time of the consent.

Unfortunately developers know that by severing roots (by accident) the trees become dangerous and will usually result in their loss - which is great for the future occupiers of the development - more light and more views.

The developer still has a duty of care to safeguard trees even when they aren't located on their site. The planning permission should also have been subject to an approrpiate arboricultural appraisal and a method statement to ensure works did not damge the trees on the adjacent site - irrespective of whether or not they were protected at the time of the consent.
Unfortunately developers know that by severing roots (by accident) the trees become dangerous and will usually result in their loss - which is great for the future occupiers of the development - more light and more views.fatboytim

Sensible Sue wrote:
At last Alanrr - someone else with some sense! I'm looking forward to seeing what it looks like next year! No more awful derelict building and dark scrubland...

Derelict building? Oh dear - go and live in Milton Keynes. That is a 250-year-old manufactury and was locally listed and the last remaining industrial building in the town from that era. Dark scrubland? tell that one to the birds and the bees.

[quote][p][bold]Sensible Sue[/bold] wrote:
At last Alanrr - someone else with some sense! I'm looking forward to seeing what it looks like next year! No more awful derelict building and dark scrubland...[/p][/quote]Derelict building? Oh dear - go and live in Milton Keynes. That is a 250-year-old manufactury and was locally listed and the last remaining industrial building in the town from that era. Dark scrubland? tell that one to the birds and the bees.Crank

fatboytim wrote:
The developer still has a duty of care to safeguard trees even when they aren't located on their site. The planning permission should also have been subject to an approrpiate arboricultural appraisal and a method statement to ensure works did not damge the trees on the adjacent site - irrespective of whether or not they were protected at the time of the consent.

Unfortunately developers know that by severing roots (by accident) the trees become dangerous and will usually result in their loss - which is great for the future occupiers of the development - more light and more views.

"which is great for the future occupiers of the development - more light and more views."...........yo
u are saying that as if it is a bad thing..............I wish the council would cut down the trees outside my flat, I would have more daylight, no better views though only more of the flats opposite to look at, but I would be more cheery and that has got to be a good thing and maybe I'd write less comments p3ssing less people off

[quote][p][bold]fatboytim[/bold] wrote:
The developer still has a duty of care to safeguard trees even when they aren't located on their site. The planning permission should also have been subject to an approrpiate arboricultural appraisal and a method statement to ensure works did not damge the trees on the adjacent site - irrespective of whether or not they were protected at the time of the consent.
Unfortunately developers know that by severing roots (by accident) the trees become dangerous and will usually result in their loss - which is great for the future occupiers of the development - more light and more views.[/p][/quote]"which is great for the future occupiers of the development - more light and more views."...........yo
u are saying that as if it is a bad thing..............I wish the council would cut down the trees outside my flat, I would have more daylight, no better views though only more of the flats opposite to look at, but I would be more cheery and that has got to be a good thing and maybe I'd write less comments p3ssing less people offalanrr

I remember a friend of mine over queens park that wanted to put a swimming Pool in his garden but was refused permission because it meant felling trees that had a preservation order on them, if he had chosen to ignore the councils orders and went ahead with it he would have received a very hefty fine, will those councillors who have signed off the paperwork to allow these trees to be chopped down recieve the same kind of fines? I personally believe they should.

I remember a friend of mine over queens park that wanted to put a swimming Pool in his garden but was refused permission because it meant felling trees that had a preservation order on them, if he had chosen to ignore the councils orders and went ahead with it he would have received a very hefty fine, will those councillors who have signed off the paperwork to allow these trees to be chopped down recieve the same kind of fines? I personally believe they should.Marty Caine UKIP

I read the article in The Echo. It states that the trees were cut down by the council. So we as taxpayers are also paying for the privilege of cutting them down and taking them away (presumeably) for the developer! How soft are we to sit and take this. TPO' s are there for a reason. So what the council have done is to say to any developer come into Christchurch and do what you want. Ignore our Planning Dept and our councillors who sit on these committees (for which we pay) and make your money from these developments then pack up and move onto the next town. What a state of affairs to be in.

I read the article in The Echo. It states that the trees were cut down by the council. So we as taxpayers are also paying for the privilege of cutting them down and taking them away (presumeably) for the developer! How soft are we to sit and take this. TPO' s are there for a reason. So what the council have done is to say to any developer come into Christchurch and do what you want. Ignore our Planning Dept and our councillors who sit on these committees (for which we pay) and make your money from these developments then pack up and move onto the next town. What a state of affairs to be in.mytown1

So, if the council first said the trees were removed due to storm damage, and then when pressed actually said they were damaged by this ditch dug by the developer, did someone get their information wrong, or were they simply lying and hope no-one would find out the truth?

So, if the council first said the trees were removed due to storm damage, and then when pressed actually said they were damaged by this ditch dug by the developer, did someone get their information wrong, or were they simply lying and hope no-one would find out the truth?speedy231278

Please also post your thoughts on the wanton vandalism of Druitt gardens on our leaders blog. http://raynottage.bl
ogspot.co.uk. That's why Charlotte Druitt left them to the people of Christchurch not the council. It's a sad day.

Please also post your thoughts on the wanton vandalism of Druitt gardens on our leaders blog. http://raynottage.bl
ogspot.co.uk. That's why Charlotte Druitt left them to the people of Christchurch not the council. It's a sad day.FrogKiss

at the next council elections vote out this bunch old **** who only think of how much they can make for them selfs they have allready cost residence about 1.5 mill in appeall costs in the supermarket fiasco if council lose

at the next council elections vote out this bunch old **** who only think of how much they can make for them selfs they have allready cost residence about 1.5 mill in appeall costs in the supermarket fiasco if council loselcorbin

"Dear Mr Nottage , I have just looked at your blogspot and you really do think we ,the public, are even more stupid than you always thought we were ! Do you not think that every man, woman, child and dog in Christchurch knows that this has all been done on a "wink and a nod" basis probably at the Lodge meeting ? Your remit is and was to protect the integrity of Druitt Gardens , ....you have failed! If the footpath closure is temporary why has their been an alternative PERMANENT new path installed ? Why has a private developer been allowed to block off a public open space ? Why is a private developer been given, free of charge, Public Car park spaces ?? Hopefully this may well be the one " clever " move too many and brings about yours, and the other like minded Councillors downfall
Yours, Damned Angry of Christchurch !! "

"Dear Mr Nottage , I have just looked at your blogspot and you really do think we ,the public, are even more stupid than you always thought we were ! Do you not think that every man, woman, child and dog in Christchurch knows that this has all been done on a "wink and a nod" basis probably at the Lodge meeting ? Your remit is and was to protect the integrity of Druitt Gardens , ....you have failed! If the footpath closure is temporary why has their been an alternative PERMANENT new path installed ? Why has a private developer been allowed to block off a public open space ? Why is a private developer been given, free of charge, Public Car park spaces ?? Hopefully this may well be the one " clever " move too many and brings about yours, and the other like minded Councillors downfall
Yours, Damned Angry of Christchurch !! "wokboy60

wokboy60 wrote:
&quot;Dear Mr Nottage , I have just looked at your blogspot and you really do think we ,the public, are even more stupid than you always thought we were ! Do you not think that every man, woman, child and dog in Christchurch knows that this has all been done on a "wink and a nod" basis probably at the Lodge meeting ? Your remit is and was to protect the integrity of Druitt Gardens , ....you have failed! If the footpath closure is temporary why has their been an alternative PERMANENT new path installed ? Why has a private developer been allowed to block off a public open space ? Why is a private developer been given, free of charge, Public Car park spaces ?? Hopefully this may well be the one " clever " move too many and brings about yours, and the other like minded Councillors downfall
Yours, Damned Angry of Christchurch !! "

As Nottage keeps having my ( non libelous ) posts removed I think that this one may be short lived

Enjoy your power while you have it Nottage

You serve the voters of Christchurch ill

[quote][p][bold]wokboy60[/bold] wrote:
"Dear Mr Nottage , I have just looked at your blogspot and you really do think we ,the public, are even more stupid than you always thought we were ! Do you not think that every man, woman, child and dog in Christchurch knows that this has all been done on a "wink and a nod" basis probably at the Lodge meeting ? Your remit is and was to protect the integrity of Druitt Gardens , ....you have failed! If the footpath closure is temporary why has their been an alternative PERMANENT new path installed ? Why has a private developer been allowed to block off a public open space ? Why is a private developer been given, free of charge, Public Car park spaces ?? Hopefully this may well be the one " clever " move too many and brings about yours, and the other like minded Councillors downfall
Yours, Damned Angry of Christchurch !! "[/p][/quote]As Nottage keeps having my ( non libelous ) posts removed I think that this one may be short lived
Enjoy your power while you have it Nottage
You serve the voters of Christchurch illbilly bumble

The Cllrs who protest at was has happened are being rather disingenuous as if happen to know that they were warned about the issue of the planning extant planning permission and the fact that serving the TPO was not going to prevent the root damage, so to beat on about their 'digits' at what has happened is nothing but pandering to the public because they have been caught out. If they were so concerned about the trees, which are not that god anyway why did they permit development on the first place, when the issues was raised initially. It is the Cllrs who should be held to account not the Council Officers.

The Cllrs who protest at was has happened are being rather disingenuous as if happen to know that they were warned about the issue of the planning extant planning permission and the fact that serving the TPO was not going to prevent the root damage, so to beat on about their 'digits' at what has happened is nothing but pandering to the public because they have been caught out. If they were so concerned about the trees, which are not that god anyway why did they permit development on the first place, when the issues was raised initially. It is the Cllrs who should be held to account not the Council Officers.vhopper

This morning the council placed two signs on trees 'outside' of the compound saying that this area was closed as it was dangerous. The area was taped off this morning. This is a pack of lies designed to intimidate people as to where they may and may not walk. Accordingly the signs were removed and the tapes brought down later this morning.

This morning the council placed two signs on trees 'outside' of the compound saying that this area was closed as it was dangerous. The area was taped off this morning. This is a pack of lies designed to intimidate people as to where they may and may not walk. Accordingly the signs were removed and the tapes brought down later this morning.Battok

"The work that the developer was doing was inside the boundary of the site and they have a planning consent which they are entitled to implement within that site."
.
However a Topological (soil) survey of the proposed development area should have been carried out by a competent person. That being the case has any attention been paid to the RPA (Root Protection Area) as specified by - British Standards Institution BS 5837: 2012Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations?
It would appear not.

"The work that the developer was doing was inside the boundary of the site and they have a planning consent which they are entitled to implement within that site."
.
However a Topological (soil) survey of the proposed development area should have been carried out by a competent person. That being the case has any attention been paid to the RPA (Root Protection Area) as specified by - British Standards Institution BS 5837: 2012Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations?
It would appear not.HOIYMOIY

jinglebell wrote:
What a complete waste of time to vote or not vote or protest ....its increasingly obvious that politicians will do what they wish irrespective of how residents feel.

Well it is certainly never a waste of time to vote because that is what the political elite actually prefer, it is far easier to please a majority of a minority than a majority of a majority but there are rules and regulations that all councillors have to abide by and you can visit your local Council website and view the Councillors Code of Conduct there. If anyone as a resident feels that these rules have been broken then there is a complaints procedure, which if unsatisfactory resolved locally will then go to the ombudsman.

As Einstein said "The purest form of insanity is to leave everything the same whilst at the same time hope that things will change"

[quote][p][bold]jinglebell[/bold] wrote:
What a complete waste of time to vote or not vote or protest ....its increasingly obvious that politicians will do what they wish irrespective of how residents feel.[/p][/quote]Well it is certainly never a waste of time to vote because that is what the political elite actually prefer, it is far easier to please a majority of a minority than a majority of a majority but there are rules and regulations that all councillors have to abide by and you can visit your local Council website and view the Councillors Code of Conduct there. If anyone as a resident feels that these rules have been broken then there is a complaints procedure, which if unsatisfactory resolved locally will then go to the ombudsman.
As Einstein said "The purest form of insanity is to leave everything the same whilst at the same time hope that things will change"Marty Caine UKIP

vhopper wrote:
The Cllrs who protest at was has happened are being rather disingenuous as if happen to know that they were warned about the issue of the planning extant planning permission and the fact that serving the TPO was not going to prevent the root damage, so to beat on about their 'digits' at what has happened is nothing but pandering to the public because they have been caught out. If they were so concerned about the trees, which are not that god anyway why did they permit development on the first place, when the issues was raised initially. It is the Cllrs who should be held to account not the Council Officers.

Part of a TPO is a RPA - root protection area. So yes the TPO should have prevented this. BS 5837: 2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations

[quote][p][bold]vhopper[/bold] wrote:
The Cllrs who protest at was has happened are being rather disingenuous as if happen to know that they were warned about the issue of the planning extant planning permission and the fact that serving the TPO was not going to prevent the root damage, so to beat on about their 'digits' at what has happened is nothing but pandering to the public because they have been caught out. If they were so concerned about the trees, which are not that god anyway why did they permit development on the first place, when the issues was raised initially. It is the Cllrs who should be held to account not the Council Officers.[/p][/quote]Part of a TPO is a RPA - root protection area. So yes the TPO should have prevented this. BS 5837: 2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – RecommendationsHOIYMOIY

madM74 wrote:
How has an archeological dig severed three roots?? Surely they should be doing this by hand not a huge JCB?? And why did they continue after severing the first root?

A mature tree provides more than a young sapling, I hope the council now plant 10 trees to replace the ones lost (and charge the people responsible)

Just a quick comment there was no JCB on site it was a Doosan DX80R

[quote][p][bold]madM74[/bold] wrote:
How has an archeological dig severed three roots?? Surely they should be doing this by hand not a huge JCB?? And why did they continue after severing the first root?
A mature tree provides more than a young sapling, I hope the council now plant 10 trees to replace the ones lost (and charge the people responsible)[/p][/quote]Just a quick comment there was no JCB on site it was a Doosan DX80Rskippy123

PokesdownMark wrote:
So anyone in Christchurch now has a step by step process for getting around a TPO. You carry out an legitimate action that apparently, accidentally damages the roots - say, installing a water feature or underground electric cable. You then express concern to the council about elf'n'safety. The council say you can cut down the tree. If they don't you document that the council has, in effect, taken on responsibility for future damage by declaring the tree is safe. Something that public bodies are massively unlikely to do because they are engineered to be totally risk adverse. Far simpler for them to just allow the tree to be felled. Ta dah!

Oh, You R Awful (ly Close to the Mark) Mark.

[quote][p][bold]PokesdownMark[/bold] wrote:
So anyone in Christchurch now has a step by step process for getting around a TPO. You carry out an legitimate action that apparently, accidentally damages the roots - say, installing a water feature or underground electric cable. You then express concern to the council about elf'n'safety. The council say you can cut down the tree. If they don't you document that the council has, in effect, taken on responsibility for future damage by declaring the tree is safe. Something that public bodies are massively unlikely to do because they are engineered to be totally risk adverse. Far simpler for them to just allow the tree to be felled. Ta dah![/p][/quote]Oh, You R Awful (ly Close to the Mark) Mark.a.g.o.g.

I'm not a Christchurch resident but I do support holding onto a valuable asset in the town centre and not allowing its destruction or modification. The builders who damaged the trees knew very well that no action will be taken, and the Council bear the ultimate responsibility. Replacing trees with the stock suggested will not attract wildlife as it was before.
If I were able to vote in Christchurch next time round I know exactly who I would not vote for.

I'm not a Christchurch resident but I do support holding onto a valuable asset in the town centre and not allowing its destruction or modification. The builders who damaged the trees knew very well that no action will be taken, and the Council bear the ultimate responsibility. Replacing trees with the stock suggested will not attract wildlife as it was before.
If I were able to vote in Christchurch next time round I know exactly who I would not vote for.chthatcher

I am sure the councillors are thinking TGIF. By Monday it will all be forgotten. Unfortunately for Christchurch Borough Council this will not be the case. The residents want answers from the people they pay to represent them. What part of representing the views of the local community do they not understand.

I am sure the councillors are thinking TGIF. By Monday it will all be forgotten. Unfortunately for Christchurch Borough Council this will not be the case. The residents want answers from the people they pay to represent them. What part of representing the views of the local community do they not understand.mytown1

What annoys me most is the time and effort of all of those people who opposed their felling, and the money spent on getting the trees protected.
Having been vandalised by the developer, It is we, the taxpayers who pick up the bill to now remove these healthy specimens.
But I am pointing the finger at each and every councillor on the planning committee (maybe not cllr Hall) for permitting a development so near to the boundary of the gardens , without a Arboricultural report from the new applicant.

What annoys me most is the time and effort of all of those people who opposed their felling, and the money spent on getting the trees protected.
Having been vandalised by the developer, It is we, the taxpayers who pick up the bill to now remove these healthy specimens.
But I am pointing the finger at each and every councillor on the planning committee (maybe not cllr Hall) for permitting a development so near to the boundary of the gardens , without a Arboricultural report from the new applicant.FrogKiss

vhopper wrote:
The Cllrs who protest at was has happened are being rather disingenuous as if happen to know that they were warned about the issue of the planning extant planning permission and the fact that serving the TPO was not going to prevent the root damage, so to beat on about their 'digits' at what has happened is nothing but pandering to the public because they have been caught out. If they were so concerned about the trees, which are not that god anyway why did they permit development on the first place, when the issues was raised initially. It is the Cllrs who should be held to account not the Council Officers.

Part of a TPO is a RPA - root protection area. So yes the TPO should have prevented this. BS 5837: 2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations

The RPA has nothing to do with a TPO. The RPA relates to the BS5837 :2012. Planning permission overrides a TPO in that you can do whatever is necessary to implement the planning permission. The Cllrs knew the trees would be detrimentally affected by the TPO and were advised that the TPO would not prevent the work they had permitted. Despite this they insisted on the serving of the TPO purely to look as if they were doing something to appease the concerned public.

[quote][p][bold]HOIYMOIY[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]vhopper[/bold] wrote:
The Cllrs who protest at was has happened are being rather disingenuous as if happen to know that they were warned about the issue of the planning extant planning permission and the fact that serving the TPO was not going to prevent the root damage, so to beat on about their 'digits' at what has happened is nothing but pandering to the public because they have been caught out. If they were so concerned about the trees, which are not that god anyway why did they permit development on the first place, when the issues was raised initially. It is the Cllrs who should be held to account not the Council Officers.[/p][/quote]Part of a TPO is a RPA - root protection area. So yes the TPO should have prevented this. BS 5837: 2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations[/p][/quote]The RPA has nothing to do with a TPO. The RPA relates to the BS5837 :2012. Planning permission overrides a TPO in that you can do whatever is necessary to implement the planning permission. The Cllrs knew the trees would be detrimentally affected by the TPO and were advised that the TPO would not prevent the work they had permitted. Despite this they insisted on the serving of the TPO purely to look as if they were doing something to appease the concerned public.vhopper

FrogKiss wrote:
What annoys me most is the time and effort of all of those people who opposed their felling, and the money spent on getting the trees protected.
Having been vandalised by the developer, It is we, the taxpayers who pick up the bill to now remove these healthy specimens.
But I am pointing the finger at each and every councillor on the planning committee (maybe not cllr Hall) for permitting a development so near to the boundary of the gardens , without a Arboricultural report from the new applicant.

Here here!!

[quote][p][bold]FrogKiss[/bold] wrote:
What annoys me most is the time and effort of all of those people who opposed their felling, and the money spent on getting the trees protected.
Having been vandalised by the developer, It is we, the taxpayers who pick up the bill to now remove these healthy specimens.
But I am pointing the finger at each and every councillor on the planning committee (maybe not cllr Hall) for permitting a development so near to the boundary of the gardens , without a Arboricultural report from the new applicant.[/p][/quote]Here here!!vhopper

alanrr wrote:
get over it ,,,,,they are trees.........not people......better trees get felled than people..............

plant a dozen trees somewhere else and if necessary make the contractors pay if it was their fault in the first place..........bet people in somerset think &quot;is this all Christchurch residents have to moan about"

For goodness sake, don't you see the real concerns about this? It's not the trees per se, it's the action of the council and developers who see people like you who can be trampled over for their own ends. Wake up.

[quote][p][bold]alanrr[/bold] wrote:
get over it ,,,,,they are trees.........not people......better trees get felled than people..............
plant a dozen trees somewhere else and if necessary make the contractors pay if it was their fault in the first place..........bet people in somerset think "is this all Christchurch residents have to moan about"[/p][/quote]For goodness sake, don't you see the real concerns about this? It's not the trees per se, it's the action of the council and developers who see people like you who can be trampled over for their own ends. Wake up.Old Colonial

Turtlebay wrote:
The trees they have felled must be replaced immediately with similar sized ones from another site. The expense and inconvenience of doing this will be a lesson to the contractors that they MUST obey the law!

The contractors/ developers have done nothing unlawful, they are simply implementing their planning permission.

[quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote:
The trees they have felled must be replaced immediately with similar sized ones from another site. The expense and inconvenience of doing this will be a lesson to the contractors that they MUST obey the law![/p][/quote]The contractors/ developers have done nothing unlawful, they are simply implementing their planning permission.vhopper

HRH of Boscombe wrote:
Don't understand!
.
If the tree preservation was in place both the developer and the council have an obligation to abide by it.
.
It's the developers responsibility to survey properly in order not to damage them.
.
They are are liable and should be heavily punished.

Wrong! The Cllrs insisted on the TPO after the planning permission was issued knowing it was not enforceable.

Weak pandering to the verbal minority has landed them in this mess. It nobodies fault but the Cllrs

[quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote:
Don't understand!
.
If the tree preservation was in place both the developer and the council have an obligation to abide by it.
.
It's the developers responsibility to survey properly in order not to damage them.
.
They are are liable and should be heavily punished.[/p][/quote]Wrong! The Cllrs insisted on the TPO after the planning permission was issued knowing it was not enforceable.
Weak pandering to the verbal minority has landed them in this mess. It nobodies fault but the Cllrsvhopper

The points made on this page regarding the legislative protection of the TPO protection zone are correct. Firstly the buildng to tree relationship on the proposed development that received planning permission was highly questionable and should instead have been refused. Notwithstanding this the Archaeological firm should have been required by planning condition to have a pre commencement meeting with the Council's Arboricultural Officer before any investigative work was undertaken. Secondly they must provide a report of their methods and findings for an Inquiry into this as negligence appears to have occurred. The Enforcement Officer should also produce a report to ascertain if there is a case for prosecution. Thirdly the Council must make a statement immediately that there will be 4 mature specimens planted within 1 metre of the location of the lost trees as required by law. The commuted sum of £200k that has been mentioned on this page has nothing to do with this matter and cannot be considered as mitigation for any loss of protected trees.

The points made on this page regarding the legislative protection of the TPO protection zone are correct. Firstly the buildng to tree relationship on the proposed development that received planning permission was highly questionable and should instead have been refused. Notwithstanding this the Archaeological firm should have been required by planning condition to have a pre commencement meeting with the Council's Arboricultural Officer before any investigative work was undertaken. Secondly they must provide a report of their methods and findings for an Inquiry into this as negligence appears to have occurred. The Enforcement Officer should also produce a report to ascertain if there is a case for prosecution. Thirdly the Council must make a statement immediately that there will be 4 mature specimens planted within 1 metre of the location of the lost trees as required by law. The commuted sum of £200k that has been mentioned on this page has nothing to do with this matter and cannot be considered as mitigation for any loss of protected trees.hobosolero

hobosolero wrote:
The points made on this page regarding the legislative protection of the TPO protection zone are correct. Firstly the buildng to tree relationship on the proposed development that received planning permission was highly questionable and should instead have been refused. Notwithstanding this the Archaeological firm should have been required by planning condition to have a pre commencement meeting with the Council's Arboricultural Officer before any investigative work was undertaken. Secondly they must provide a report of their methods and findings for an Inquiry into this as negligence appears to have occurred. The Enforcement Officer should also produce a report to ascertain if there is a case for prosecution. Thirdly the Council must make a statement immediately that there will be 4 mature specimens planted within 1 metre of the location of the lost trees as required by law. The commuted sum of £200k that has been mentioned on this page has nothing to do with this matter and cannot be considered as mitigation for any loss of protected trees.

I never meant to suggest that the sum paid by developer to council was in any way a mitigation, especially as I have been working to protect the biodiversity of Druitt Gardens for 25 years. What was the sum for is the real question.

[quote][p][bold]hobosolero[/bold] wrote:
The points made on this page regarding the legislative protection of the TPO protection zone are correct. Firstly the buildng to tree relationship on the proposed development that received planning permission was highly questionable and should instead have been refused. Notwithstanding this the Archaeological firm should have been required by planning condition to have a pre commencement meeting with the Council's Arboricultural Officer before any investigative work was undertaken. Secondly they must provide a report of their methods and findings for an Inquiry into this as negligence appears to have occurred. The Enforcement Officer should also produce a report to ascertain if there is a case for prosecution. Thirdly the Council must make a statement immediately that there will be 4 mature specimens planted within 1 metre of the location of the lost trees as required by law. The commuted sum of £200k that has been mentioned on this page has nothing to do with this matter and cannot be considered as mitigation for any loss of protected trees.[/p][/quote]I never meant to suggest that the sum paid by developer to council was in any way a mitigation, especially as I have been working to protect the biodiversity of Druitt Gardens for 25 years. What was the sum for is the real question.Crank

alanrr wrote:
get over it ,,,,,they are trees.........not people......better trees get felled than people..............

plant a dozen trees somewhere else and if necessary make the contractors pay if it was their fault in the first place..........bet people in somerset think &quot;is this all Christchurch residents have to moan about"

For goodness sake, don't you see the real concerns about this? It's not the trees per se, it's the action of the council and developers who see people like you who can be trampled over for their own ends. Wake up.

It is all very well you and the majority of others bleating on about this with all the childish nonsense about corruption. If you are all so concerned about the implied incorrect implementation of the planning legislation which led to this, you need the read up on planning law and be there at the planning committees or raise your objection as part of the due process. In this case the developer has done no wrong. The trees are all poor specimens whose replacement will ensure the future tree cover on the site.
No can or will be prosecuted . The Cllrs need to learn to listen to the Officers advice rather than pandering to the vocal minority.

[quote][p][bold]Old Colonial[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]alanrr[/bold] wrote:
get over it ,,,,,they are trees.........not people......better trees get felled than people..............
plant a dozen trees somewhere else and if necessary make the contractors pay if it was their fault in the first place..........bet people in somerset think "is this all Christchurch residents have to moan about"[/p][/quote]For goodness sake, don't you see the real concerns about this? It's not the trees per se, it's the action of the council and developers who see people like you who can be trampled over for their own ends. Wake up.[/p][/quote]It is all very well you and the majority of others bleating on about this with all the childish nonsense about corruption. If you are all so concerned about the implied incorrect implementation of the planning legislation which led to this, you need the read up on planning law and be there at the planning committees or raise your objection as part of the due process. In this case the developer has done no wrong. The trees are all poor specimens whose replacement will ensure the future tree cover on the site.
No can or will be prosecuted . The Cllrs need to learn to listen to the Officers advice rather than pandering to the vocal minority.vhopper

ashleycross wrote:
So, will we be seeing prosecution for damaging tree roots? As the council is the prosecuting authority this could be interesting.....

Coming soon to Christchurch, bank robbers tunnel into the vaults of three local banks but can't be prosecuted as they all have archaeology degrees.

[quote][p][bold]ashleycross[/bold] wrote:
So, will we be seeing prosecution for damaging tree roots? As the council is the prosecuting authority this could be interesting.....[/p][/quote]Coming soon to Christchurch, bank robbers tunnel into the vaults of three local banks but can't be prosecuted as they all have archaeology degrees.ashleycross

This dodgy Ringwood company based at Brightwater House, Market Place, Ringwood have acquired a site in Wareham - I hope their planning request is scrutinised very closely by the council and previous behaviors taken into consideration.

This dodgy Ringwood company based at Brightwater House, Market Place, Ringwood have acquired a site in Wareham - I hope their planning request is scrutinised very closely by the council and previous behaviors taken into consideration.Frank Spencer

Has Christchurch Council LOST the respect of all its residents?
90% of the Highcliffe residents i spoke to had no faith in the planning office that was responsible for the trees.
From personal experience i have found the dept responsible for the trees create arguments to avoid residents enjoying their home life but when it suits them ANY TREE can be felled.

There are far too many TREES with TPO’s what are suddenly felled in VERY suspicious circumstances and i NOW URGE THE RESIDENTS to DEMAND legal action, the same legal action that we as residents are threatened with.

The new development of bungalows on Chewton Common Road, at the rear of St Marks Primary in Highcliffe - I was told that the trees were so badly damaged during construction that they had to be felled. Is this true?

At Highcliffe Castle, Christchurch Council wanted to fell trees to improve the vista! Yet told a Highcliffe resident that they could NOT fell their tree to improve their vista as it was a public amenity despite being in their back garden! Have the trees been felled?

And now Druitt gardens – the fact is it had a TPO, a legally enforceable document, if Christchurch Council Tree Officers cannot work out the root plan of a tree then they should be investigated for incompetence and dealt with. The Council or the developer is not above the law so if enough of us demand an independent government inquiry then it will happen.

How many more trees are felled in suspicious circumstances?

Demand action and complain to your local government ombudsman, call 0300 061 0614 or through the web site http://www.lgo.org.u
k/publications/fact-
sheets/complaints-ab
out-trees/

Has Christchurch Council LOST the respect of all its residents?
90% of the Highcliffe residents i spoke to had no faith in the planning office that was responsible for the trees.
From personal experience i have found the dept responsible for the trees create arguments to avoid residents enjoying their home life but when it suits them ANY TREE can be felled.
There are far too many TREES with TPO’s what are suddenly felled in VERY suspicious circumstances and i NOW URGE THE RESIDENTS to DEMAND legal action, the same legal action that we as residents are threatened with.
The new development of bungalows on Chewton Common Road, at the rear of St Marks Primary in Highcliffe - I was told that the trees were so badly damaged during construction that they had to be felled. Is this true?
At Highcliffe Castle, Christchurch Council wanted to fell trees to improve the vista! Yet told a Highcliffe resident that they could NOT fell their tree to improve their vista as it was a public amenity despite being in their back garden! Have the trees been felled?
And now Druitt gardens – the fact is it had a TPO, a legally enforceable document, if Christchurch Council Tree Officers cannot work out the root plan of a tree then they should be investigated for incompetence and dealt with. The Council or the developer is not above the law so if enough of us demand an independent government inquiry then it will happen.
How many more trees are felled in suspicious circumstances?
Demand action and complain to your local government ombudsman, call 0300 061 0614 or through the web site http://www.lgo.org.u
k/publications/fact-
sheets/complaints-ab
out-trees/brian74

zabadoo wrote:
If this had been one of the utility companies the council would have come down on them like a ton of bricks! I can remember a situation where tree roots were accidentally damaged in Sandford and it caused no end of trouble for the utility concerned and cost thousands of pounds.
This was the developer's own archaeological team that did this, and they should be pursued and fined, and replant similar trees.
This absolutely stinks!

I thought Archaeological teams used scrapers and hand brushes. Not very professional were they.

[quote][p][bold]zabadoo[/bold] wrote:
If this had been one of the utility companies the council would have come down on them like a ton of bricks! I can remember a situation where tree roots were accidentally damaged in Sandford and it caused no end of trouble for the utility concerned and cost thousands of pounds.
This was the developer's own archaeological team that did this, and they should be pursued and fined, and replant similar trees.
This absolutely stinks![/p][/quote]I thought Archaeological teams used scrapers and hand brushes. Not very professional were they.Ex PHC

brian74 wrote:
Has Christchurch Council LOST the respect of all its residents?
90% of the Highcliffe residents i spoke to had no faith in the planning office that was responsible for the trees.
From personal experience i have found the dept responsible for the trees create arguments to avoid residents enjoying their home life but when it suits them ANY TREE can be felled.

There are far too many TREES with TPO’s what are suddenly felled in VERY suspicious circumstances and i NOW URGE THE RESIDENTS to DEMAND legal action, the same legal action that we as residents are threatened with.

The new development of bungalows on Chewton Common Road, at the rear of St Marks Primary in Highcliffe - I was told that the trees were so badly damaged during construction that they had to be felled. Is this true?

At Highcliffe Castle, Christchurch Council wanted to fell trees to improve the vista! Yet told a Highcliffe resident that they could NOT fell their tree to improve their vista as it was a public amenity despite being in their back garden! Have the trees been felled?

And now Druitt gardens – the fact is it had a TPO, a legally enforceable document, if Christchurch Council Tree Officers cannot work out the root plan of a tree then they should be investigated for incompetence and dealt with. The Council or the developer is not above the law so if enough of us demand an independent government inquiry then it will happen.

How many more trees are felled in suspicious circumstances?

Demand action and complain to your local government ombudsman, callMore nonsense about 'suspicious' tree felling. Having worked in various planning departments for 40 years managing planning and tree officers, I am sure both this department and any others you are worried about would welcome an investigation into such claims of malpractice.
As with a lot of nimbies, you do not want anyone questioning your right to do what you want with your trees and cannot bear to think that others may be getting little more that you. The "I can't have my tree down but they had theirs down, therefore there must be something suspicious going on there on" is a little simplistic.

If you really want to know what has happened, go down and have a chat with the planners and ask for the files and committee reports, it all open to the public, you'll get much further than ranting on these forums or wasting more public money on inquiries

[quote][p][bold]brian74[/bold] wrote:
Has Christchurch Council LOST the respect of all its residents?
90% of the Highcliffe residents i spoke to had no faith in the planning office that was responsible for the trees.
From personal experience i have found the dept responsible for the trees create arguments to avoid residents enjoying their home life but when it suits them ANY TREE can be felled.
There are far too many TREES with TPO’s what are suddenly felled in VERY suspicious circumstances and i NOW URGE THE RESIDENTS to DEMAND legal action, the same legal action that we as residents are threatened with.
The new development of bungalows on Chewton Common Road, at the rear of St Marks Primary in Highcliffe - I was told that the trees were so badly damaged during construction that they had to be felled. Is this true?
At Highcliffe Castle, Christchurch Council wanted to fell trees to improve the vista! Yet told a Highcliffe resident that they could NOT fell their tree to improve their vista as it was a public amenity despite being in their back garden! Have the trees been felled?
And now Druitt gardens – the fact is it had a TPO, a legally enforceable document, if Christchurch Council Tree Officers cannot work out the root plan of a tree then they should be investigated for incompetence and dealt with. The Council or the developer is not above the law so if enough of us demand an independent government inquiry then it will happen.
How many more trees are felled in suspicious circumstances?
Demand action and complain to your local government ombudsman, callMore nonsense about 'suspicious' tree felling. Having worked in various planning departments for 40 years managing planning and tree officers, I am sure both this department and any others you are worried about would welcome an investigation into such claims of malpractice.
As with a lot of nimbies, you do not want anyone questioning your right to do what you want with your trees and cannot bear to think that others may be getting little more that you. The "I can't have my tree down but they had theirs down, therefore there must be something suspicious going on there on" is a little simplistic.
If you really want to know what has happened, go down and have a chat with the planners and ask for the files and committee reports, it all open to the public, you'll get much further than ranting on these forums or wasting more public money on inquiriesvhopper

Sounds like a few backhanders going on down there! The developers can deliberately damage protected trees and roots and make them unsafe, to where they must then be removed. The whole thing stinks of commercial profiteering and get rid of the trees at all costs and then argue once they've gone. Even if the developer is found guilty of the offence, the fine will be pitiful and well worth doing, just like water and sewage companies who kill rivers, destroy wildlife and habitat with raw sewage and chemicals etc. The owner of the company here should be personally targeted by the law and locked up if found guilty.

Sounds like a few backhanders going on down there! The developers can deliberately damage protected trees and roots and make them unsafe, to where they must then be removed. The whole thing stinks of commercial profiteering and get rid of the trees at all costs and then argue once they've gone. Even if the developer is found guilty of the offence, the fine will be pitiful and well worth doing, just like water and sewage companies who kill rivers, destroy wildlife and habitat with raw sewage and chemicals etc. The owner of the company here should be personally targeted by the law and locked up if found guilty.rollingpinboy

brian74 wrote:
Has Christchurch Council LOST the respect of all its residents?
90% of the Highcliffe residents i spoke to had no faith in the planning office that was responsible for the trees.
From personal experience i have found the dept responsible for the trees create arguments to avoid residents enjoying their home life but when it suits them ANY TREE can be felled.

There are far too many TREES with TPO’s what are suddenly felled in VERY suspicious circumstances and i NOW URGE THE RESIDENTS to DEMAND legal action, the same legal action that we as residents are threatened with.

The new development of bungalows on Chewton Common Road, at the rear of St Marks Primary in Highcliffe - I was told that the trees were so badly damaged during construction that they had to be felled. Is this true?

At Highcliffe Castle, Christchurch Council wanted to fell trees to improve the vista! Yet told a Highcliffe resident that they could NOT fell their tree to improve their vista as it was a public amenity despite being in their back garden! Have the trees been felled?

And now Druitt gardens – the fact is it had a TPO, a legally enforceable document, if Christchurch Council Tree Officers cannot work out the root plan of a tree then they should be investigated for incompetence and dealt with. The Council or the developer is not above the law so if enough of us demand an independent government inquiry then it will happen.

How many more trees are felled in suspicious circumstances?

Demand action and complain to your local government ombudsman, callMore nonsense about 'suspicious' tree felling. Having worked in various planning departments for 40 years managing planning and tree officers, I am sure both this department and any others you are worried about would welcome an investigation into such claims of malpractice.
As with a lot of nimbies, you do not want anyone questioning your right to do what you want with your trees and cannot bear to think that others may be getting little more that you. The "I can't have my tree down but they had theirs down, therefore there must be something suspicious going on there on" is a little simplistic.

If you really want to know what has happened, go down and have a chat with the planners and ask for the files and committee reports, it all open to the public, you'll get much further than ranting on these forums or wasting more public money on inquiries

[quote][p][bold]brian74[/bold] wrote:
Has Christchurch Council LOST the respect of all its residents?
90% of the Highcliffe residents i spoke to had no faith in the planning office that was responsible for the trees.
From personal experience i have found the dept responsible for the trees create arguments to avoid residents enjoying their home life but when it suits them ANY TREE can be felled.
There are far too many TREES with TPO’s what are suddenly felled in VERY suspicious circumstances and i NOW URGE THE RESIDENTS to DEMAND legal action, the same legal action that we as residents are threatened with.
The new development of bungalows on Chewton Common Road, at the rear of St Marks Primary in Highcliffe - I was told that the trees were so badly damaged during construction that they had to be felled. Is this true?
At Highcliffe Castle, Christchurch Council wanted to fell trees to improve the vista! Yet told a Highcliffe resident that they could NOT fell their tree to improve their vista as it was a public amenity despite being in their back garden! Have the trees been felled?
And now Druitt gardens – the fact is it had a TPO, a legally enforceable document, if Christchurch Council Tree Officers cannot work out the root plan of a tree then they should be investigated for incompetence and dealt with. The Council or the developer is not above the law so if enough of us demand an independent government inquiry then it will happen.
How many more trees are felled in suspicious circumstances?
Demand action and complain to your local government ombudsman, callMore nonsense about 'suspicious' tree felling. Having worked in various planning departments for 40 years managing planning and tree officers, I am sure both this department and any others you are worried about would welcome an investigation into such claims of malpractice.
As with a lot of nimbies, you do not want anyone questioning your right to do what you want with your trees and cannot bear to think that others may be getting little more that you. The "I can't have my tree down but they had theirs down, therefore there must be something suspicious going on there on" is a little simplistic.
If you really want to know what has happened, go down and have a chat with the planners and ask for the files and committee reports, it all open to the public, you'll get much further than ranting on these forums or wasting more public money on inquiriesvhopper

More nonsense about 'suspicious' tree felling. Having worked in various planning departments for 40 years managing planning and tree officers, I am sure both this department and any others you are worried about would welcome an investigation into such claims of malpractice.
As with a lot of nimbies, you do not want anyone questioning your right to do what you want with your trees and cannot bear to think that others may be getting little more that you. The "I can't have my tree down but they had theirs down, therefore there must be something suspicious going on there on" is a little simplistic.

If you really want to know what has happened, go down and have a chat with the planners and ask for the files and committee reports, it all open to the public, you'll get much further than ranting on these forums or wasting more public money on inquiries

More nonsense about 'suspicious' tree felling. Having worked in various planning departments for 40 years managing planning and tree officers, I am sure both this department and any others you are worried about would welcome an investigation into such claims of malpractice.
As with a lot of nimbies, you do not want anyone questioning your right to do what you want with your trees and cannot bear to think that others may be getting little more that you. The "I can't have my tree down but they had theirs down, therefore there must be something suspicious going on there on" is a little simplistic.
If you really want to know what has happened, go down and have a chat with the planners and ask for the files and committee reports, it all open to the public, you'll get much further than ranting on these forums or wasting more public money on inquiriesvhopper

brian74 wrote:
Demand action and complain to your local government ombudsman, call 0300 061 0614 or through the web site http://www.lgo.org.u

k/publications/fact-

sheets/complaints-ab

out-trees/

I think you will find you need to complain to your council first and then if there is no resolve you can take it to ombudsman

[quote][p][bold]brian74[/bold] wrote:
Demand action and complain to your local government ombudsman, call 0300 061 0614 or through the web site http://www.lgo.org.u
k/publications/fact-
sheets/complaints-ab
out-trees/[/p][/quote]I think you will find you need to complain to your council first and then if there is no resolve you can take it to ombudsmanMarty Caine UKIP

I suggest an outside authority launch a legal probe into the Council's relationship with this developer. The Council should authorize it.

This is such an obvious stitch-up. And these people are elected?
I suggest an outside authority launch a legal probe into the Council's relationship with this developer. The Council should authorize it.Yankee1

Frank Spencer wrote:
We really need to do all we can to block these cowboy builders getting any more projects in this lovely area. I hope Christchurch council do take this into consideration in future.

That will depend very much on how 'nice' the developer is to certain councillors and council officers!

[quote][p][bold]Frank Spencer[/bold] wrote:
We really need to do all we can to block these cowboy builders getting any more projects in this lovely area. I hope Christchurch council do take this into consideration in future.[/p][/quote]That will depend very much on how 'nice' the developer is to certain councillors and council officers!Billycat

vhopper wrote:
More nonsense about 'suspicious' tree felling. Having worked in various planning departments for 40 years managing planning and tree officers, I am sure both this department and any others you are worried about would welcome an investigation into such claims of malpractice.
As with a lot of nimbies, you do not want anyone questioning your right to do what you want with your trees and cannot bear to think that others may be getting little more that you. The &quot;I can't have my tree down but they had theirs down, therefore there must be something suspicious going on there on" is a little simplistic.

If you really want to know what has happened, go down and have a chat with the planners and ask for the files and committee reports, it all open to the public, you'll get much further than ranting on these forums or wasting more public money on inquiries

Based on your 40 years managing planning and tree officers, is this situation unique?

As to having a chat with the Council, i think you will find the Bournemouth Echo had already done that on our behalf, this is the reply the Echo reported ’In their original statement, the council declined to mention the ditch which had been dug, saying the trees were a “danger to the public” and blamed the “extreme weather conditions” for the felling.But after enquiries from the Daily Echo they re-issued a second response’

We then learn that the roots had been cut making the trees unsafe.

Does not fill you with confidence, does it?

I am sure all that the Christchurch residents want is a fair and honest system. We must all abide by the same laws, if we do not agree with the laws then we fight for change. We don’t do as we please.

[quote][p][bold]vhopper[/bold] wrote:
More nonsense about 'suspicious' tree felling. Having worked in various planning departments for 40 years managing planning and tree officers, I am sure both this department and any others you are worried about would welcome an investigation into such claims of malpractice.
As with a lot of nimbies, you do not want anyone questioning your right to do what you want with your trees and cannot bear to think that others may be getting little more that you. The "I can't have my tree down but they had theirs down, therefore there must be something suspicious going on there on" is a little simplistic.
If you really want to know what has happened, go down and have a chat with the planners and ask for the files and committee reports, it all open to the public, you'll get much further than ranting on these forums or wasting more public money on inquiries[/p][/quote]Based on your 40 years managing planning and tree officers, is this situation unique?
As to having a chat with the Council, i think you will find the Bournemouth Echo had already done that on our behalf, this is the reply the Echo reported ’In their original statement, the council declined to mention the ditch which had been dug, saying the trees were a “danger to the public” and blamed the “extreme weather conditions” for the felling.But after enquiries from the Daily Echo they re-issued a second response’
We then learn that the roots had been cut making the trees unsafe.
Does not fill you with confidence, does it?
I am sure all that the Christchurch residents want is a fair and honest system. We must all abide by the same laws, if we do not agree with the laws then we fight for change. We don’t do as we please.brian74

I posted a factual account of how Councillors had voted in the 3 key determining committees leading up to this fiasco.. It has been removed. Why? Surely our Councillors are responsible for their votes and we are entitled to know how they voted?

I posted a factual account of how Councillors had voted in the 3 key determining committees leading up to this fiasco.. It has been removed. Why? Surely our Councillors are responsible for their votes and we are entitled to know how they voted?xchresident

hi if you are reading this the you know about DRUITT gardens and the cutting down of the trees by the Christchurch Panning Office.

if you agree that we need an independent inquiry then PLEASE sign this government petition.

http://epetitions.di
rect.gov.uk/petition
s/60678

thanks

hi if you are reading this the you know about DRUITT gardens and the cutting down of the trees by the Christchurch Panning Office.
if you agree that we need an independent inquiry then PLEASE sign this government petition.
http://epetitions.di
rect.gov.uk/petition
s/60678
thanksbrian74

Lets let the Council know how we feel about all this. The next Council meeting is this coming Tuesday 6pm (25th) Why not make our views known to Councillors and the Press outside the Civic Office Bridge Street BH23 1AZ (rear entrance) at 5:45 Tues.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH— ask the Council to LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE!

Lets let the Council know how we feel about all this. The next Council meeting is this coming Tuesday 6pm (25th) Why not make our views known to Councillors and the Press outside the Civic Office Bridge Street BH23 1AZ (rear entrance) at 5:45 Tues.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH— ask the Council to LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE!localratepayer

So long as there is money to be made from these situations & no chance of any truly serious punishment for devious disregard of the protection on the trees there will always be a queue of scroungers, sorry 'dvelopers', willing to take a little short-term bad press to line their pockets. What is happening at Druitt Gardens is an absolute disgrace. I have lived in Christchurch all my life 58 years) and nothing has ever made me so ashamed of my home town.

So long as there is money to be made from these situations & no chance of any truly serious punishment for devious disregard of the protection on the trees there will always be a queue of scroungers, sorry 'dvelopers', willing to take a little short-term bad press to line their pockets. What is happening at Druitt Gardens is an absolute disgrace. I have lived in Christchurch all my life 58 years) and nothing has ever made me so ashamed of my home town.sogo56